State v. Moncada (2011)

Addressing first the merger issue, we discussed that, in State v. Glaspey, 337 Or 558 , 100 P3d 730 (2004), 6 ORS 161.067(2) provides, “When the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” 26 State v. Gatewood the Supreme Court had stated that ORS 161.067(2) “uses the term ‘victims’ to describe the category of persons who are victims withi…

Cf. Moncada, 241 Or App at 212 (the class protected by proscribing the failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, ORS 811.705, are the “injured persons” toward whom a driver fails to perform his or her duties).

See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (after considering text and context, court considers any pertinent legislative history, giving it appropriate weight).” We reiterated that inquiry, with some refinement, in State v. Moncada, 241 Or App 202, 212 , 250 P3d 31 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 545 (2012), explaining that, “[w]here the statute defining a crime does not expressly identify the person who qualifies as a ‘victim,’ the court examines the statute to …

Not surprisingly, the state responds that defendant "does not grapple with the fact that animals, unlike firearms, are living beings that can be the victims of crime." The state also argues that "the legislature intended *1055 for each animal unlawfully possessed to be considered a separate victim of the crime, justifying separate convictions." 2 ORS 161.067(2) provides, in part, "[w]hen the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision invo…